http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=195
January 22nd, 2009 by ResLight
Ronald Day:
One person claims that we are dishonest, evidently because we do not wish to join with him in assuming, adding to, and reading into any of the scriptures that Jesus is the Father,
mlculwell: How about start with believing the scriptures and take them for what they say? Jesus gave all concerning his human, sinless life and God gave all 0f his power and spirit by no measure unto him. (John 3:34, Math.28:18) I accused you of measuring the Spirit given and what did you do? You simply denied it with no argument and reasoned your way out of it, that is dishonesty and as it stands a weak argument.
Ronald Day:
and we endeavor to distinguish between doctrine added to the scriptures from what the scriptures actually do say. He further says that we are presenting same “weak” arguments of the JWs. In reality, although at times we may agree with some of the “arguments” presented by the JWs, we are not presenting the arguments of the JWs, weak or otherwise. Of course, claiming another’s argument as “weak” and “dishonest” does not necessarily mean that the arguments are actually “weak” or “dishonest”, since this tactic, that is, claiming the opposing argument is “weak”, “dishonest,” is often used as a decoy tactic, the usage of words to create an negative train of thought in the readers’ minds so as to discredit the opposing arguments in the minds of the readers.
mlculwell:I am claiming, and My initial claim was that Ronald was dishonest because he sees the passages I presented and offers no rebuttal, no answers to my charge but continually denies what I presented.What did I present? I had stated that the Spirit was given to the son by no measure unto him.(John 3:34) Was there one answer by Mr. Day refuting what I presented? NO! Over and over he simply denies my arguments, anybody in the first grade can do that, I can hear it now? Jesus was given the spirit by no measure as Ronald exclaims over and over "NO HE WAS NOT"!(To take away in any amount is measuring the spirit) that is how Ronald argues and expects me to buy it. The charge still stands. He measured the spirit given.
God the father is Spirit (John 4:24) God is Holy (Psalm 99:9, 1st. Peter 1:15) thus God the father is the Holy Spirit and it is his title in dealing with mankind and working in regeneration And is that which caused the conception in Mary making the Holy Spirit the father of the son Miraculously(Math. 1:19-21) That is the same Spirit that existed before the son and was given and was his deity on the earth and in heaven(it was his possession without measure) Jesus was made both lord and Christ from his mothers womb(John 3:34) because the son had a begging or origin. (Gal. 4:4)
Ronald Day:
On the other hand, the poster has presented not one scripture that says that Jesus, or any of the Bible writers, ever claimed that Jesus was his Father, or that he ever became his father, etc., but rather has presented a few scriptures that he wishes to add that idea to, and read that idea into, those scriptures. So it makes us wonder about who is really presenting the “weak” arguments.
mlculwell: Maybe Ronald will take his own advice and present a passage that shows us that he did not measure the spirit given as Jesus possession but I am so glad he gave me this opportunity to teach him something. All throughout the scripture we get little tidbit gems like the following that both Ronald Day and the Trinitarian's miss.
The spirit is the coming Jesus in spirit, the phrase *he shall not speak of himself *is a hint, letting us know the coming spirit is Jesus, Jesus uses the term he in reference to the coming spirit because he is not yet that coming spirit....
(John 14:10)the phrase again refers to the son becoming the spirit. Remember the passage *Howbeit when he the spirit of truth is come*? The spirit of truth was already there. Was he not?
The spirit was already with us but could not be in us until the spirit was purchased with Jesus Blood. Jesus called the spirit a he because the spirit was distinct from his flesh that both housed the spirit and was himself later after the passion(I (Jesus) will not leave you comfortless, (As fatherless orphans) I (Jesus)will come to you (as the spirit)(John 14:16-18,26, 1st.Cor.3: 17)
When Jesus walked the earth he was not yet the other comforter in the spirit but was still the first comforter in the flesh but he had not yet purchased for us to have that Spirit(John 7:38-39) The Holy Ghost was not yet given, for Jesus was not yet glorified. There still remained a distinction between the spirit(God)
and the flesh. For instance; Jesus did not know the time of his own
coming(Matt.24:36) as he was limited in knowledge, but the Spirit of
God who knew all things and revealed all things had not yet revealed them to his limited
humanity. Jesus discreetly claimed to be God the father as he stood before Caiaphas the high priest causing the priest to tear his own clothes and cry blasphemy. What caused such an uproar?
Jesus said that Caiaphas would personally see Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven standing on the right hand of power(Which the meaning of the right hand of God not a geographic Location of God's right side Matth. 26:64) The coming in clouds Caipahas recognized was reserved For Jehovah God alone as he came in judgement on the heathen nations all throughout the Old scriptures.
Ronald Day
Nor is it for us to present arguments that Jesus is not his Father, for the default assumption is that a son is not his father.
mlculwell: We do not make claim that "the son(Flesh) is his own father (Spirit)." We make claim as do the scriptures that since Jesus was given the spirit by no measure Which is the spirit of God the father in him(John 14:10) that was his own spirit by no measure in which you measure.
Other passages relating Jesus deity is that of the father:
You will die in your sins unless you believe I am he.(He who?) They understood not that he spake to them of the father.(John 8:24-27)
Ronald day:
Nevertheless, trying to address assumptions that are in the imaginations of men will always seem to be “weak” to those who believe those imaginative assumptions.
27 comments:
Manny, your (mis)understanding of the KJV's 'no reputation' at once laughable and sad. It actually means that He emptied Himself, which proves the point that He - Jesus Christ - was God in the Flesh.
Of Course he was God in the flesh! where have I denied that? I have said nothing that contradicts Philippians 2:5-9 Joel you sound like a modified Trinitarian. If he does not speak of himself, Joel, who would Jesus not make himself of no reputation? Was that before he was with the other two persons of God or was that when he was the Babe Jesus? You do understand his humanity had a beginning and was not eternal? Your view is a hybrid view Just like the trinitarians.
I didn't say that you denied that - although your doctrine does teeter on the edge of Arius. I said that you misunderstanding of Phil. 2.7 is laughable and sad. It does not mean that Christ "he did not speak of himself, or toot his own horn". It meant that he void the Incarnation of the divinity, or as the NLT says,
He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form.
(Philippians 2:7 NLT)
It does not mean 'talking.'
How do you get what I said and turn it into a 'modified Trinitarian'?
There were never two persons, and His humanity is not eternal. Where do you get these things? Manny, you always had a problem with reading comprehension.
Joel Watts:
This is what you said:
"he void the Incarnation of the divinity,"
mlculwell:
He void the incarnation???
The incarnation Is God the father in the son.(John 14:10, 2nd Cor. 5:19) It does not mean God the father became the son! Otherwise when the son died God died which is impossible.
Joel watts:
or as the NLT says,
He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form.
(Philippians 2:7 NLT)
mlculwell: Of Course He did! God the father took on the form of a servant. You take my different approach which puts the emphasis on Jesus humanity and have the nerve to say I teeter on Arianism the very doctrine I fight against? It is Just as important to fight for his real sinless humanity because that is what purchased our salvation and was our mediator which I believe you deny his real humanity. it is you that has no comprehension and that is very clear.
Here is the most precious thing of Joel wrote.
"It does not mean 'talking."
Joel, the phrase *he shall not speak of himself*. means to not make himself of any reputation, in other words; he never came out and said he was God,except in cryptic spiritual language, Jesus was found in fashion of any other man. it looks to me you give no thought to what you say or the scriptures and charge right in.
Manny, I realize that it is a waste of time to tell you this, but refer to the Greek.
The Incarnation is God in the flesh. God came down as a man - not God, thus my phrase 'he voided the Incarnation of divinity.' (Not deity)
The phrase in the KJV of 'made of himself no reputation' is literally 'emptied himself'. Can you tell the difference, Manny? Should I draw you a picture? It is not about communicating who He was, or as you so eloquently put it, 'tooting his own horn' but about becoming fully man in order to accomplish the work of the Cross.
Manny, do you believe
Jesus Christ is His Son who came into existence by the power of God by birth to the virgin Mary
Really, you should go here
Manny, I realize that it is a waste of time to tell you this, but refer to the Greek.
mlculwell: Joel, it seems you have a self prescribed head knowledge to which you give no real thought.otherwise you would not be arguing with me.
Joel:
The Incarnation is God in the flesh. God came down as a man -
mlculwell: Yes, I agree with what you have written above.
Joel:
not God, thus my phrase 'he voided the Incarnation of divinity.' (Not deity)
mlculwell:
I believe Like just like David Bernard teaches on the Godhead with a very minor disagreements, I remember you did not like his teachings or that you scoffed at them.
Here is what Bernard says.
he did not actually Empty himself of attributes of deity,for that would mean an abdication of deity, with Jesus becoming a mere demigod. Jesus renounced not his divine attributes but concealed them in the weakness of human flesh. They were always available, but he chose not to use them, or he used them in a new way. He imposed limitations on himself. his heavenly glory and majesty were no longer immediately apparent. in short.He hid his divinity in humanity, but his deity was still evident to the eyes of faith. pg. 223 the Oneness of God. David Bernard
Joel:
The phrase in the KJV of 'made of himself no reputation' is literally 'emptied himself'. Can you tell the difference, Manny?
mlculwell: yeah I agree with what I had written concerning What David Bernard explained above. The problem that you and I are having is that you see a one time thing it seems to me.
Joel:
Should I draw you a picture? It is not about communicating who He was,
mlculwell: Yes and No, it was about concealing to those who did not have faith and revealing to those who did. You see a limited one time thing just before he came in the incarnation, but I see it began before and culminated through his entire life on the earth.
Joel:
or as you so eloquently put it, 'tooting his own horn'
mlculwell: Your problem is as plain as day and it has to do with Pride, thinking yourself more intellectual than you actually are, same problem the JW's and some trinitarians have.
Joel
but about becoming fully man in order to accomplish the work of the Cross.
mlculwell: Yes, I agree with this statement above. You look past me to see something else, Because you do not like How I put emphasis on his humanity which is just as important as his deity. he shall not speak of himself and no all the way to the cross he did not toot his own horn, what Philippians 2 explained did not stop at the incarnation but went all the way to the cross and beyond.
Joel
Manny, do you believe
Jesus Christ is His Son who came into existence by the power of God by birth to the virgin Mary
mlculwell: Yes Joel I do! Jesus Christ according to the flesh was the only begotten son of the father, don't you believe that? I proclaim Jesus Christ is His/God's only begotten son.
Yes, he came into existence by the power of God by the virgin birth. The spirit overshadowing Mary causing the conception(Math. 1:19-21)
Joel writes:
Really, you should go here
mlculwell:
Joel, it was just as I expected nothing of real Oneness believers interest. But I do agree with Irishangelican, "you are narrow Minded".
Manny, first, go to the Greek. It is the original language, and the language which doctrine should be based on - otherwise, we get your half-breed doctrine concerning Christ tooting His own horn.
I know, I know, you worship St. Bernard, but David is wrong in many areas, not the least here. You cannot define your doctrine in opposition to someone else's. Again, because you cannot read, I made a distinction between divinity and deity. See, you really have to keep up if you are going to learn anything.
You have created a dichotomy concerning that verse when there is none. It implied the Incarnation. At the Incarnation, He emptied Himself of the divinity, and put on a robe of flesh. The Greek is limited to this meaning - but that is right, you do not like anything that actually seems like knowledge.
Manny, that statement that you believe comes from the Church of God, General Conference, which is a modern day Arius group. Granted, this was a trick question, but Manny, it proves that you are Arian in your understanding of Christ, the Logos, and God.
You, agreeing with a Trinitarian? Manny, I know you had it in you. Actually, my work has been quoted by real oneness believers, who unlike yourself, understand the compromises David St. Bernard has introduced into your little UPCI. And yes, I am narrow minded to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you had read the posts, then you would see that IrishAnglican was wanting me to appeal to the Councils - which you seem to want to do as well.
J. L. Watts said...
Manny, first, go to the Greek. It is the original language, and the language which doctrine should be based on - otherwise, we get your half-breed doctrine concerning Christ tooting His own horn.
mlculwell: You are a self prescribed (amateur) this discussion is over in my mind. You would look like a fool in any debate as you always do. Your group is not Oneness at all and is not recognized by anyone.
Joel:
I know, I know, you worship St. Bernard, but David is wrong in many areas, not the least here.
mlculwell: His pedigrees say more than yours! He is well known authority and educated way beyond what you have presented, you are nothing! I do not worship Bernard. But he will get a debate from scholars as being educated and you will get laughed at. You are ignorant and full of pride and hatred.
Joel:
You cannot define your doctrine in opposition to someone else's.
mlculwell:
I defined it, and you scoffed, then I submitted someone who agreed with me, what did you do? Joel you do realize your doctrine sounds like trinitarianism concerning Philippians? Who emptied himself? "God the son"? Your doctrine makes Jesus a Hybrid just like the triniarian's. Jesus in your view is a demigod a new species Like Hercules. you are ignorant and do not see it.
Joel:
Again, because you cannot read, I made a distinction between divinity and deity. See, you really have to keep up if you are going to learn anything.
mlculwell: LOL!I do not want to learn anything from you Joel if that is what you learned about Jesus keep it go tell one of your gullible fools, you are too prideful to even be taught.
Joel:
You have created a dichotomy concerning that verse when there is none. It implied the Incarnation. At the Incarnation, He emptied Himself of the divinity, and put on a robe of flesh. The Greek is limited to this meaning
mlculwell: Joel, you have created the Dichotomy concerning that verse! You make Jesus a demigod. I would like for you to tell me how you have not? A greek word Is not a definition of the word. But a trinitarian will sure tell you what the word means.
Joel:
- but that is right, you do not like anything that actually seems like knowledge.
mlculwell: I love Knowledge But I do not want anything you are offering because your view of Jesus is a demigod a Herculean New species. Watch you ignore me and say know it is not.
Joel:
Manny, that statement that you believe comes from the Church of God, General Conference, which is a modern day Arius group. Granted, this was a trick question, but Manny, it proves that you are Arian in your understanding of Christ, the Logos, and God.
mlculwell: LOL! No Joel, this shows more of your ignorance, all arians focus on one area of Jesus, and that is on his humanity, and deny his deity, I proclaimed his real humanity just like they do if there was a denial of his deity which there was not then i would have denied it there was nothing tricky about the question but it shows how you really do believe Jesus is a demigod you are so blind you do not even see how it actually tripped you up. Tell ya what I am going to put this on my debate group because I am just that confident of what you have shown here.
Joel Watts:
You, agreeing with a Trinitarian? Manny, I know you had it in you. Actually, my work has been quoted by real oneness believers,
mlculwell: Yeah Like Hymeneus and Philetus thought they were real believers. Someone deceived does not know they are deceived, and that is you Joel.you deny Jesus real humanity those that accept your work as scholarly are just as ignorant as you.
Joel:
who unlike yourself, understand the compromises David St. Bernard has introduced into your little UPCI.
mlculwell: Joel, I am not a part of the UPCI but I recognize Bernard as a real scholar and you a False Prophet and those that believe like you are the real compromisers, I am independent but I would never accept any of your Hybrid, new species teachings.
Joel:
And yes, I am narrow minded to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
mlculwell: No Joel you are not you are deceived beyond deception. Please tell me how your view of Jesus is not a Hybrid demigod since God became a man. if God becomes man then he is no longer God.
Joel:
If you had read the posts, then you would see that IrishAnglican was wanting me to appeal to the Councils - which you seem to want to do as well.
mlculwell: Do you remember us having arguments on your group over the so called church fathers? How you gave them credibility and I do not? I deny any creed or so called church father as being valid to dictate what I believe. councils??? I simply agree with him that you are not capable of proper reasoning because you are blinded by hatred and narrow-mindedness.
Joel:
"Manny, that statement that you believe comes from the Church of God, General Conference, which is a modern day Arius group.
You, agreeing with a Trinitarian? Manny, I know you had it in you. Actually, my work has been quoted by real oneness believers",
Which is it Joel, are they Arians or trinitarains? You seem confused here. You cannot be one and be the other you are either one or the other. But this is the kind of thing we can expect from Joel Watts self proclaimed scholar.
He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form.
(Philippians 2:7 NLT)
Oh and I very much agree with this the above translation. I would like to know How you get your interpretation from it though? you inserted it and made Jesus a demigod.
Joel, the very post concerning "Ronald Day" (a real modern day Arian believer) This was My critique of his denial of Jesus deity. I emphasize Jesus real humanity in dealing with trinitarains and emphasize his deity with them. It is just as important as his real deity. I believe you deny his real humanity and make him something other than what the scriptures teach.
Manny, you are a little spastic. Actually, I am not a self-prescribed anything - just a student of the word of God - unlike yourself.
To what group are you identifying me with? Manny, I understand ignorance is bliss an all, but really, you should learn to wise up just a bit.
Pedigrees...St. Bernard...haha! Manny, it seems that only you and a few UPCI'ers worship him and consider authoritative on anything. Really, who else buys into his doctrine?
Actually, Manny, I have never God the Son - remember, I insisted that your try to keep up. Your assumption that I said that shows how little your reading comprehensions skills have improved over the past few years, you angry little man. God became flesh, thus the Son. Makes pretty good sense to everyone who can read past the first grade level, Manny.
So, you cannot use the Greek to define the Greek? Manny - that's stupid. You realize that when Paul wrote his letters, they were written in Greek - implying that you have to use Greek to define what he what he wrote.
You tell me how I created the dichotomy, Manny, when I have said that the verse concerns one instance and One Person. You realize - I hope - that 'di' in Greek means two. You have insisted that this verse covers several instances in the life of Jesus - thus by definition, you have created a dichotomy of Incarnations, and Christs.
Manny, you realize that you approved of an Arius statement, right? How do you not get that? Oh yes, that's right - you are Manny.
Tell me, in my own words, how have I ever denied the real humanity of Christ? Come on, Manny, unless you be found to be a liar (again).
Manny, what logic is there if the only existence of your doctrine is found in your mind? On the other hand, my doctrine can be found in history. Tell me, Manny, what's it feel like to be alone in the world?
Manny, I realize that it is difficult for you to follow train of thoughts. Your statement in agreement with the Arius denomination was one thought. My response to your statement on Irishanglican was another thought - and you have already shown that you knew what that was. Poor, Manny.
Again, show me where I have denied His real humanity. If you cannot, you will again be declared a liar.
Further, Manny, the blogger blog is actually a secondary blog that points to my wordpress blog here. Do you know the difference?
As far as I know, not to many people 'follow' that blog; however, I am pretty good with the other one - even made a daily newspaper.
J. L. Watts said...
Manny, you are a little spastic. Actually, I am not a self-prescribed anything - just a student of the word of God - unlike yourself.
mlculwell: you can make false claims all you like it does you no good. You are not good student of the word nor are you good at defending your false doctrine and you are deceived.
Joel:
To what group are you identifying me with?
mlculwell: The false prophets, your doctrine is false.
Joel:
Manny, I understand ignorance is bliss an all, but really, you should learn to wise up just a bit.
mlculwell:what have you said in any of this borderline incoherent mess that proclaims your beliefs and exposes mine as false doctrine Zero you jump around chicken with it's head cut off not dealing with anything I accused you of because it is true of your false doctrine. You do not believe Jesus was a real man, which is just as bad as denying his real deity. not one mention in all of this muck telling me why your Jesus is not a hybrid. I submitted to my group just like I said I would.
Joel:
Pedigrees...St. Bernard...haha! Manny, it seems that only you and a few UPCI'ers worship him and consider authoritative on anything. Really, who else buys into his doctrine?
mlculwell: Does that make you feel like you are actually somebody of importance to falsely accuse somebody of preacher worship? your committing a sin Joel! I have never heard you say anything that was remotely close to scriptural doctrine. let's debate your Hybrid, Herculean, mixture, Jesus against the Bible?
Joel:
Actually, Manny, I have never God the Son - remember, I insisted that your try to keep up.
mlculwell; I have never "god the son" either and frankly do not even know what this incoherent gibberish even means?
Joel:
Your assumption that I said that shows how little your reading comprehensions skills have improved over the past few years, you angry little man.
mlculwell: Oh I am angry alright at your false doctrine of hybrid Herculean mixture.
Joel:
God became flesh, thus the Son. Makes pretty good sense to everyone who can read past the first grade level, Manny.
mlculwell: "God did not become flesh" he indwelt flesh. If God became flesh then he was no longer God but a hybrid mixture and not a real man but of course I have known that all along about your false doctrine. You need to defend it if you can but you will be able to because everytime you open your mouth I will expose your false doctrine.
Joel:
So, you cannot use the Greek to define the Greek?
mlculwell: I never said that Joel. I said Greek words do not define themselves.
Joel:
Manny - that's stupid. You realize that when Paul wrote his letters, they were written in Greek
mlculwell: Yes Joel I do! But you have made zero point. No word defines itself. It is our best guess based on a study of words and how they were used in the time in which they were used.
Joel:
- implying that you have to use Greek to define what he what he wrote.
mlculwell: Stop acting like an intellectual I know who you are a nobody! Please why don't you go talk Greek with a real Greek expert Like James White who tilts toward his trinitarian bias. Because you are not one!
Joel:
You tell me how I created the dichotomy, Manny, when I have said that the verse concerns one instance and One Person.
mlculwell: You never said who took on the flesh in the incarnation.That deity had to have pre-existed,I say it was god the father who took upon him the form of a servant what do you say? Your Doctrine still ends up making Jesus a puppet Hybrid Herculean demigod. But I see zero denial in your last post even as I smeared your belief as a fact that is what you believe.
Joel:
You realize - I hope - that 'di' in Greek means two. You have insisted that this verse covers several instances in the life of Jesus - thus by definition, you have created a dichotomy of Incarnations, and Christs.
mlculwell: I did no such thing!Now who is the one that is challenged with a comprehension problem? You lack any understanding whatsoever of the scriptures. God taking upon himself the form of a servant, you do understand that form of a servant existed in this world? The incarnation took place for Jesus to exist in this world, he hid his deity in his humanity. The eternal God came down and dwelt in flesh but was not born, nor did he die although Jesus was God manifest in the flesh from his mothers womb. You just like to argue for arguments sake and give zero arguments. The crux of your way of arguing is simply either saying; Yes he is, or yes did, or no he did not. That is the way in which you argue.
Joel:
Manny, you realize that you approved of an Arius statement, right?
mlculwell: Joel, not everything an Arian says is wrong. They at least know more than you that Jesus was a real man. There was no denial of Jesus deity in the short little quote you gave.If there was I would not have agreed with the quote. This makes you look foolish and you don't even know.
Joel:
How do you not get that? Oh yes, that's right - you are Manny.
mlculwell: You do not believe Jesus is the son of God? I do! no matter who quotes it! I also believe Jesus was born of a Virgin, and that since his humanity had a beginning and did not pre-exist that his deity and power had to be given him. (Acts 2:36, Matth. 28:18, 1st. Cor. 15:45)
Joel:
Tell me, in my own words, how have I ever denied the real humanity of Christ?
mlculwell: You denied he was the son of God and that he was born of a virgin. Is that not what you are chiding me for? Your view of Jesus is Hybrid Herculean mixture. You said; "God became a man" How is that not a mixture of the two? please explain to me how it is not?
Joel
Come on, Manny, unless you be found to be a liar (again).
mlculwell: Same Ol Joel Watts falsely accusing.
Joel:
Manny, what logic is there if the only existence of your doctrine is found in your mind? On the other hand, my doctrine can be found in history.
mlculwell: Yeah you are right i find your doctrine in history what is that called? Oh yeah Hercules a Hybrid Mixture of Greek mythology.
Joel:
Tell me, Manny, what's it feel like to be alone in the world?
mlculwell: I am not alone as there are Millions of Oneness Believers who believe Just Like i do But I can tell you I do not get my doctrine from Greek mythology.
Joel:
Manny, I realize that it is difficult for you to follow train of thoughts. Your statement in agreement with the Arius denomination was one thought.
mlculwell: First you said they were Arian's then you said they were trinitarians. I does not look like you even know what you are talking about concerning this either. But I will agree with anyone who says Jesus was the son of God and believes the virgin birth so you must deny that then.
Joel:
My response to your statement on Irishanglican was another thought - and you have already shown that you knew what that was. Poor, Manny.
mlculwell: you are narrow minded and have need someone teach you instead you try and act as if you actually know something. That is what is sad.
Joel:
Again, show me where I have denied His real humanity. If you cannot, you will again be declared a liar.
mlculwell: I have shown several times and accused you of having a hybrid doctrine you have not submitted one thing to show me you do not believe that. I could care less who you declare as anything. Seeing how you deny Jesus was the son of God and born of a virgin as that was the quote you ridicule for.
Manny, the one thing that I have learned in my time of blogging, is that hits, comments, actually help the blog to appear higher on google. I do not want to help you out, but allow me to help you here.
It is our best guess based on a study of words and how they were used in the time in which they were used.
Manny, you have just said a mouth full - in that we 'guess' what the word of God is. You are a heretic.
Manny, same ole ignorant Manny. Same ole preterist Manny. Oh, Manny, the ghost in a shell Messiah Manny.
Not One mention of my accusation that your view of Jesus is a hybrid Herculean mythology mixture. You cannot defend against that which is true of your false doctrine. just a hit a run tactic calling me a heretic because I told the truth. Words do not define themselves. what defines a word is the way in which they were used in the time they were used. Take the word Logos and the way trinitarasins redefine that word.
Manny, you are a 1/8 wit. I have answered your 'charge' whereas you have not answered mine and now you say we have to guess what the word means. That's stupid.
I said no such thing we have to guess what the word of God means, when we were not talking about the word of god we were talking about single greek words, you added that.
If there is an answer to the charge your view of Jesus Is a Herculean hybrid mixture I would sure like to know where it is. that is your doctrine and there is no answer in any of these posted comments.
Let me guess what your profound answer was to my charge that your view of Jesus is Hybrid Herculean Demigod of Mythology? JOEL's answer: NO NOT. yeah that is pretty profound.
Manny, do you remember where you said,
Yes Joel I do! But you have made zero point. No word defines itself. It is our best guess based on a study of words and how they were used in the time in which they were used.
Now, Manny, the New Testament is the word of God, and it was written in Greek. The English is a translation. We have to use the Greek first to translate it into English. Following yet? You imply that during we translation, we have to guess what the words mean, thus, we really don't know what the word of God says.
Now, about your flat out lie - what's changed - concerning this 'hybrid' incarnation that you have created in your mind form the words that you have again misunderstood. God came in the flesh. John says that you are antichrist if you do not believe that Christ came in the flesh. Paul said in Philippians that he came in the form of a servant (humanity).
Pretty simply, Manny.
Manny, do you remember where you said,
Yes Joel I do! But you have made zero point. No word defines itself. It is our best guess based on a study of words and how they were used in the time in which they were used.
mlculwell: Of course I remember what I said. where was it that we were takling about translation of the word of God in of our discourse? Nowhere! We were talking about a passage and words in that passage.
Just like a Democrat to create a problem that did not exist so you can look like a genius. Pure dishonesty on your part, do you understand Joel? You did it to take the heat off of you major flub that backfired on your Arian remark that made you look like a fool.
Joel
Now, Manny, the New Testament is the word of God, and it was written in Greek.
mlculwell
You are throwing up a smoke screen to take the heat off of your Idiocy
where your argument backfired. You are no Greek Scholar, you are a wannabe pretender that is familiar with a few phrases here and there just like me.
Joel
The English is a translation. We have to use the Greek first to translate it into English.
mlculwell: You better Learn some first then.
Joel
Following yet?
mlculwell: Yeah, you are trying to appear as though you are smarter than you really are.
Joel:
You imply that during we translation, we have to guess what the words mean, thus, we really don't know what the word of God says.
mlculwell: No I did not Joel!I did not even imply such a thing you are making this up there was nothing mentioned about translation. the reason you used the word "implied" because you are fishing but just in case you get caught in your lie like just were you gave yourself an out.
Joel:
Now, about your flat out lie - what's changed - concerning this 'hybrid' incarnation that you have created in your mind form the words that you have again misunderstood.
mlculwell: Oneness does not teach "God became a man", we teach God indwelt a man in the incarnation and that God and glorified man were permanently united after the ascension. To do so before, would make God able to die and he would be a Hybrid demigod and then if God dies, he is not really God as God cannot die. Your version Has Jesus not really experiencing death but siting it out in heaven and fooling everyone. All you have done is denied my charge never answering Just Like the trinitarains
Joel:
God came in the flesh. John says that you are antichrist if you do not believe that Christ came in the flesh.
mlculwell: Yeah I agree with what is written above, but you have a puppet shell being manipulated and by a divine spirit of what I do not know? He is not real man because he does not have a human spirit therefor he is new species a Hybrid Herculean demigod never before ever seen. The trinitarains do the same thing and say we have 100% God and 100% man but will never explain how that is so but continually repeat that same mindless, mantra, they make the same hybrid nonsense claim as you!
Joel:
Paul said in Philippians that he came in the form of a servant (humanity).
Pretty simply, Manny.
mlculwell: That is no answer, it is playing it safe, so I do not rip it apart!
I also believe God (The father) came in the form of a servant.But I make a clear distinction between the spirit of God that could not and did not die, and the limited real human sinless man that did and was raised again by the spirit of God(Romans 8:11) you will not come out of your safety zone and you just play it safe I do not blame you though, as your doctrine is as weak as the trinity doctrine.
Just like a Republican to have no clue, no sense, no honesty, and no reading comprehension.
Manny, we are talking about the Greek of the New Testament. Now, to me, that is the word of God. To you, I guess not. I guess we are guessing at what the word of God is now... Manny, how do you even know what you believe? Oh, yes, St. Bernard tells you.
Manny, anything dealing with actual knowledge and understanding is a smokescreen to you. How embarrassing that is for you?
Your notion of God possessing a man is heresy, Manny. You realize that that is adoptionism, an early form of...Arianism. Of course, you are only a thin step away from Monarchism. Further, you would have Christ have two natures which is Trinitarian. Manny, you ole heretic you. You proclaim a mtyh that God selected a human body to posses, and invaded the body, sharing it with another's soul.
Do you guess at your theology like you do with what is the word of God and the meanings of words? Manny, you dishonest heretic.
Just like a Republican to have no clue, no sense, no honesty, and no reading comprehension.
mlculwell:That was weak attempt at for a comeback.
Joel:
Manny, we are talking about the Greek of the New Testament.
mlculwell:No Joel, you dishonestly made it about that, you had taken what I said about Greek words and dishonestly applied it and put into a context where it did not belong and caught me off guard to make yourself look good. we were not talking about translations but a few words and phrases.
Joel:
Now, to me, that is the word of God.
mlculwell: Just like i said you that and applied to what you wanted to so you would look like the hero thus my remark of the Democrats creating problems where none exist Like global warming so that they can falsely Tax everything and everyone to feed a big government that is the problem and they end up looking like a hero.
Joel:
To you, I guess not. I guess we are guessing at what the word of God is now...
mlculwell; I am not guessing at anything,I am very confident of the English translations I am no KJB only but I am fond of the KJB. But notice how you did not touch my remarks about you being a Greek pretender, and you are.
Joel
Manny, how do you even know what you believe? Oh, yes, St. Bernard tells you.
mlculwell: If you do not have any arguments to show us that your doctrine is not a hybrid, then do not even bother to come back.
Joel:
Manny, anything dealing with actual knowledge and understanding is a smokescreen to you. How embarrassing that is for you?
mlculwell: Yeah Joel, I bet you put a lot of thought into that failed argument of How you made yourself look totally foolish when that Arian argument you dishonestly devised backfired.if that what you learned well I am glad I did not!
Joel;
Your notion of God possessing a man is heresy, Manny.
mlculwell: I do not believe "God possessed a man!"LOL! The spirit was given to the man not by measure.
Joel:
You realize that that is adoptionism, an early form of...Arianism.
mlculwell: "Adoptionism" was the teaching Jesus was Adopted to deity sometime on earth in his adult life, such as at his baptism. Jesus was never adopted to anything in his adult life. I assure you this is not even close to my teaching. but Keep it up you are starting to get a little brave to come out with that hybrid view of yours.
Joel:
Of course, you are only a thin step away from Monarchism. Further, you would have Christ have two natures which is Trinitarian.
mlculwell: Two natures? Are you telling me that Jesus was not a real human being? You mean Jesus had One Nature and it was a Hybrid Mixture a Herculean demigod? that is Just what I thought.
Joel:
Manny, you ole heretic you. You proclaim a mtyh that God selected a human body to posses, and invaded the body, sharing it with another's soul.
mlculwell:I Proclaim a Myth? You proclaim Mythology with your Herculean hybrid demigod view. Joel, God had the Incarnation in mind from the foundation of the world! Sharing a life? Yes Joel the scriptures read; that they all might be One father as thou art in me and I in thee. when Jesus died God did not die But you give that no thought just like everything else.. But it was not a mixture of man and God, if it were, then he would be neither all of one, or the other! But your doctrine is exactly that, just like the trinity folks only their mixture is God the son and a body.
Joel:
Do you guess at your theology like you do with what is the word of God and the meanings of words? Manny, you dishonest heretic.
mlculwell: here I am making fun of you doctrinally soundly beating you over the head with this ridiculous Hybrid Nonsense and you have offered nothing in your defense. But you dishonestly take what we were talking about out of context to save face for that utter failure where you looked like a total fool, what did you do? You propped up a non issue concerning of something we were not even talking about.
Manny, how can anyone debate with some one as infantile as you? You change your meanings, your limits, with each point. You are ignorant of doctrinal issues, common sense, and intellectual honesty. Shame, Manny, shame.
I still have no idea why the website that pointed me hear would have linked to you.
It's a good thing that I will not have to spend eternity with you - of course, it'll be mighty hot for you.
Manny, how can anyone debate with some one as infantile as you? You change your meanings, your limits, with each point. You are ignorant of doctrinal issues, common sense, and intellectual honesty. Shame, Manny, shame.
I still have no idea why the website that pointed me hear would have linked to you.
It's a good thing that I will not have to spend eternity with you - of course, it'll be mighty hot for you.
mlculwell:
In all Of your discourse still no defense of your hybrid view. I changed absolutely nothing. "intellectual honesty"??? Are you serious? You outright Lied on me about something that was never said about the word of God. Do you realize how Juvenile and outright stupid your trying to trick me into admitting I was a an Arian was? It was dishonest but it was great how it backfired on you. that is what you get. And you judging? You better be careful what measure you meet as the same will measured to you.
Post a Comment